Foxy Knoxy found Guilty

I haven't followed this case closely enough to make a call, but the fact that she tried to implicate an innocent man (perhaps to take advantage of prejudices, he is Congolese) among the lies, do not inspire a sense of sympathy in my eyes. Scared or not, if she was sincere she would have given her full support to the police investigation. What was her fear if she was innocent? A person willing to travel abroad, live for months in a foreign land, doing drugs illegal in that land doesn't sound like someone that scares easily. These rich little snots, liberal or not, think they can go anywhere, do whatever they want, and mommy and daddy will just write a check and make it all better. Guilty or innocent, she went abroad and behaved poorly, in a manner that embarrasses me as an American. I don't buy the "she's young" defense. If that was the case she should have stayed home. The jury deliberated for 13 hours, so it must have been a hard case. I have to trust the jury made the right choice. I just hope more "students" go an learn something, instead of showing the world what @sses they can be.

I don't really know how much you know about the reputation of the italian justice department - from what I heard the investigation was beyond sloppy. And if you can not prove a person is guilty byeond any doubt that person is regarded as innocent - in dubio pro reo.

Italy is a weird country anyway, today more than 350 000 ppl demonstrated in Rome against Berlusconi. He is said to have connections to the mafia and controls the media because the major italian media concern is his. Italian supreme court has ruled that the he has no immunity, but despite strong allegations that he is corrupt, Berlusconi said that he sees no reason to step  down from his position, even if he were convicted. The whole government is rife with nepotism and corruption on every level - it really isn't a surprise that the murder investigation was done with such low standards.

Even if my comment might suggest otherwise, I like Italy but one has to watch oneself while there.

One would then have to believe the jury has an agenda. If the murdered victim were Italian, I could see a potential to favor the prosecution. Whether or not corruption exists (having been to Italy many times, and living in Sicily for a short time, I would say yes) as far as I can see there is nothing to be gained from a conviction. Corruption needs an incentive. If the investigation was sloppy (and I've heard this as well) either the jury didn't think so or the defense was incompetent.

Funny, in your statement change Italy/Italian to US, Rome to Washington, Berlusconi to Obama, and Mafia to Chicago crime bosses and this is something you could easily hear about in America. Maybe Italy really isn't that much different from the rest of the world.

It really isn't. But it has that reputation because Italians are more open about it and non-Italians are more willing to accept that Italy is corrupt than that their own countries are not perfect.

 

A good argument against a death penalty, that case.

It really isn't. It just has a bad reputation because it's in everybody else's interest that _Italy_ is the corrupt country, not the US or Germany.

 

The thing about Berlusconi is that he controls the media in Italy because the main tv broadcaster and newspapers belong to him. In effect, there is no free press because the writers won't be critical and piss off their boss - or if they do, they get fired. Freedom of the press is protected as a constitutional right and one mark of a free democratic nation. And even if everything you alleged about Obama were true, he does not own and control the major media outlets in the US. The US media hs its own problems, but journalists can be critical without fearing to lose their jobs or any other repercussions.

As you have a two party system that roughly alternates between opposition and administration, you will always have people protesting and making allegations of corruption (might I discreetly point to GW Bush's connection to the oil industry? I am sure I could find lots of conspiracy theories just about that even if I just searched for 5 minutes, or people demonstrating against the Bush administration.. what you said was also mostly true for Bush).

 

That doesn't mean that he "controls the media". If hundreds of thousands of people demonstrate against him I think it is safe to say that people are not listening to his media.

 

What about the non-Berlusconi press and how is that different from the liberal media system in the US?

 

But you misunderstand what "freedom of the press" means. Berlusconi's media empire is a symptom of that freedom, not an obstacle to it.

 

It is.

 

While Obama himself does not own the media, people sympathetic to him do. That makes it more, not less, difficult to be critical of him since the connection is not as honest as Berlusconi's to his media.

And I haven't heard any stories that suggest that being critical of Berlusconi is a problem for Italian journalists. In fact I have heard a lot more open criticism of Berlusconi coming from Italian journalisrts than open criticism of Obama coming from American journalists.

 

Except he really didn't have any control over the media. Just look at supposed random pictures of Bush and Obama journalists use for their articles. For George Bush they always chose the dumbest-looking picture they could find, whereas Obama is always displayed as a wise leader, usually standing in front of an American flag looking forward and slightly to the skies.

(Ironically some news outlets are now noticing that Obama still hasn't achieved anything and they now blame HIM, not themselves, for the way they portrayed him for a year. What's the German term for the media's loyalty to Obama? Vorrauseilender Gehorsam?)

 

 

I think your analysis is very good and to the point.

 

While I agree that a privately owned media empire is a symptom of free press, it becomes a little blurry if that owner is head of state at the same time. I always thought that freedom of the press was supposed to eliminate undue influence of the government and most importantly censorship and guarantee that a writer can write what he truly thinks, be it critical or not. I would contest that the media that is owned by B. is independant and free of censorship.

And Berlusconi owns the main media outlets, which does not mean he supresses the rest or that there are repercussions.. what I said was meant in reference to those that he owned. Maybe I should have phrased that better. But as his empire is the most dominant one he has the most influence on the media in Italy. In effect, even though there are many independant journalists, Berslusconi controls the media because he owns most of it.

Those people that dominate the liberal media in the US are not controlled by the government. Is is their right to support his policy  if they so chose - if their employed journalists have all the freedom of thought and press that are granted by the constitution is something else entirely. One could debate the whole question whether media empires can be independant at all - your criticism is justified in that resort - but even so, it is not the same as quasi government influence B. has.

The US government does not censor critical press nor does Obama own its own media empire.

(Berlusconi is the head of government, not the head of state.)

To eliminate undue influence, yes. But influence by the owner is not "undue". It's completely legitimate and it's not censorship if the owner of a corporation decides what the corporation should publish, just like it's not censorship when I decide not to blog on some subject.

Anyone in Italy can write what they truly think, they just cannot use Berlusconi's money to do so.

And while that mechanism was a problem in the 20th century, I think by now the Internet gives everybody a platform. I don't even have a telly. I get most of my news from blogs these days.




And when government and religion should be separate a priest could still be elected and the same problem would arise.

But it doesn't really matter whether a politician owns the media or is merely supported by them to the extreme. And I have seen no evidence that Berlusconi's media outlets lie about stories the way I have seen other media companies lie all the time.

Isn't the entire discussion about Berlusconi owning large parts of the media really a distraction from the actual argument whether or not Berlusconi's media companies are really worse than others?




I do not doubt their right to support whomever they want. And I do not doubt Berlusconi's right to own media outlets. But I do have an issue with American media agreeing with Obama and pushing his agenda pretending to be "independent", while Berlusconi is the bad guy for being honest enough to have a direct connection with the media outlets supporting him.

And that still doesn't address the issue if Berlusconi's media outlets have done anything wrong.

I am assuming they haven't. Because if they had, we would talk about what they did, and not about who owns them.




The government has no influence in Berlusconi's media outlets, Berlusconi does. While I am sure his decisions as prime minister are based on what the parliament says he must do, I am even more sure that Berlusconi doesn't care what parliament says when he makes decisions for his media corporation. So where is the government influence?




But that's completely irrelevant. Obama doesn't need to own his own media empire since the media already support him.

I seem to recall Naples the problem they have with garbage disposal (which is controlled by the mafia) last summer and the year before that. Then there was a story that the mafia sunk ships with toxic waste off the coast of Italy (don't know if that was true or not in the end), news of killed prosecutors by the mafia, of nepotism in Sicily in public offices etc etc. Maybe Italians are more open about all that (corruption), but it is also very hard to deny or conceal. And South Italy is the home of the comorra and Mafia has a lot of influence - I am not saying it is restricted to Italy, but then I wasn't writing about corruption in general.

 

good summary

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/korruptionitalien100.html

 

That's an article by German state television (which has an anti-Berlusconi agenda) ACCUSING Berlusconi of censorship. Its only example is the fact that Berlusconi's outlets didn't cover Berlusconi's sex scandals.

Apart from that the article refers to Berlusconi openly calling foreign journalists "left-wing scoundrels". The author of the article takes that as proof that Berlusconi is abusing his power.

In fact they seem to be criticising Berluconi mostly for the fact that he criticised THEM first.

So basically Berlusconi and media outlets opposed to him accuse each other of censorship. But where is the evidence?

 

The US has 50 States, 2 of them being outside the main land. When I'm done visiting these 50 States I'll consider taking a trip outside the US. Besides, I'm not to thrilled to visit countries where Americans are seen in a bad way regardless what we do.

But we declare war on you yankee pigs every few decades. Doesn't that do anything for you?

 

That's not true Chuck, don't let anyone tell you it is. That is the attitude too many Americans have when they go abroad, and it shows. If you go there looking for that, sure you will find it. If I can might I recommend Brindisi in the summer. It's on the heel of Italy. Lots of small café's, delicious food and the women are simply beautiful. I don't know how they do it as they stroll past you licking their gelato's.

I don't understand how you do not acknowledge that it is problematic when the head of government privately (or not so privately) controlls 90% of TV media broadcasts, including the state television. Do you really believe it is possible to seperate the private business man from the politician in that special case? I don't  think Berlusconi is a tyrant or anything remotely like it, but  he is a scoundrel.

Italy is a democracy with the most stable unstable government in Europe, and I like Italy and most italians, they're open a friendly people, very welcoming.. and Rome is an amazing place. I like history and the roman ruins there are really really cool.

Chuck, most people in Germany like America. Sure, there might be critical opinions, but the US is mostly just seen as the land of freedom and opportunity. You will rarely find people who are openly hostile towards americans just because they are americans. And germany is a really cool place in some areas, llike Berlin, Colone during carneval, carneval in general in the rhine region, we have coo coo clocks (lol) and great saussages like Wiener (note: Wien = Vienna, so the word actually just means viennese - and I know it is in austria but the kind is very popular in Germany as well) and amazing beer and bread. I met  alot of american tourists and they all love it here. In fact, some even like it better than the US It definitly beats Iowa on the "interesting place to visit" scale.

There are so many great things to see in Europe - even if it is rather smallish compared to the US - like Prague, Split, Vienna, Carcassonne (Southern france in general is very very beautiful), Amsterdam, Geneva.. the alps, the mediterranian, Barcelona.. they all beat most places in fly over midwest americana by a long shot. And the ppl are friendly to tourists and visitors

No, I don't believe it's possible to separate the private business man from the politician. But I don't care.

I have seen so many honest politicians do the most vile things, I prefer a good scoundrel.

I am a fan of almost any politician popularly regarded as a scoundrel or evil mastermind, from Berlusconi via Bush to Lieberman. I think they are ultimately more honest than the others, and certainly more than their critics.

A politician who REALLY controls the media is not one who is constantly criticised by them and he is certainly not known as a scoundrel to the mass media.

Germany's largest television network would NOT run a "story" (with in this case lots of allegations) about such a politician.




And the majority of them voted for Berlusconi, several times, despite the fact that all media outlets, except his own, have demonised him for over a decade.

I respect that in a politician.

This thread got away quick.

Obama does not physically "own" the media here per se, but there is definitely something going on. Never before in US history has the media used its influence on such a scale to get a person elected to the presidency. So what's in it? Just follow the money. NBC is owned by GE, the GE CEO is an adviser to the president, and the company stands to make billions on "green technology" (funded in part by the proposed cap and trade scheme). They don't even try to hide it. Go to the NBC gift shop and buy a "We did it" tee shirt with Obama's picture on it.

As for fear, do a search Lou Dobbs. Now I'm sure the Obama administration was not directly involved (there are too many willing to do the dirty work for him). Maybe you don't consider death threats or firing a bullet threw a window as intimidation, I do. At any rate now CNN has been "purified" and the "news" that sends a "thrill up your leg" can now get the party word out unabated.

That one sure didn't net the US any free oil (I'm still waiting for the cheap gas). I never thought it would, but the left here pushed that issue. Funny how quiet those noise makers are now on this one.

One does not have to control the media, just be able to manipulate it. Cash works well, especially if that media has other business interests.

Even the AARP who doesn't poll their own members for their opinion, sends plenty of money to support this administration, and even more advertising in favor of its schemes. Why? Because it also endorses supplemental Medicare insurance which nets it a fortune. Good business? Maybe. Does this support the interest of its members? Probably not, since it takes money from both liberal and conservative members and supports only liberal causes. Wouldn't you say that is a conflict of interest?

Same thing happens in New York City, except they don't call them the mafia, they call them unions.

The US media landscape used to be very diverse, but in recent years it has shrunk down to half a dozen media empires that controll most. I once saw the figures and owners, but I couldn't cite it to you just now. And you do not have license fee funded public broadcast companies that people are watching. There is PBS, but most don't watch that. The cable news networks like FOX and CNN and CBS and all the rest have to make a profit with their broadcasts, and are dependant on those who pay fees for advertising which gives the bankrollers of the network pretty big influence on the content. I've seen some critics say that quality journlism under those circumstances is neigh but impossible.

And your example about NBC just illustrates the whole problematic area with lobbying. I think lobbying takes place way too much and you can accuse Obama of doing it, but back then the ppl accused Bush for doing it in favour of the oil and car industry. That does not mean that you get cheaper gas, it probably meant more profit for the oil industry. I would say that both are probably true and that it is normal in US politics to do it because the campaign money has to come from somewhere after all. So it is not something that Obama does now that nobody ever did before him,  he just turns out to be a "regular"  politician who can't solve all the problems and also makes alot of mistakes. If McCain had had won, I am sure he would have had some similar relationships with some lobby or other as well.

Nah, we got drones and missiles that can travel long distances. We can stay here and still wage a war on anyone.

 

I know what you guys mean but it's more than that though. I can barely deal with the laws here in my own country, last thing I want is to deal with the laws of a country I know little if anything about. I would not want to be found guilty of something I didn't do outside the US. I would not want to break any laws and I would definitely not want to have to deal with someone who does not speak English (or Spanish). I get enough headaches here but at least I can always go home and relax. Outside the US, it scares me to think one small mistake could keep me from going home to relax for a long time. Until I can see relationships between us and the rest of the world are better to the point traveling from one country to another is almost as easy as going from one state to another here, I don't plan on going anywhere outside the US besides Puerto Rico. Maybe Dominican Republic only because my father-in-law plans on moving there and even then I doubt it. It's just who I am.

Your response is interesting. I've been to many countries and never much gave a thought to their laws, just act like a reasonable and responsible guest would anywhere, and there is little to worry about. Now I imagine lighting up a fatty or killing someone might be frowned upon, so I would avoid those types of activities. Locals are usually more than willing to let you know if you shouldn't engage in a particular activity. When in doubt...ask. Some people travel to certain destinations to take advantage of looser laws or restrictions, that is never my intent. As for the US laws, I'm sure I don't know them all, but I can pretty much stay out of trouble by acting reasonably. It isn't that hard.

Oh, forgot to add: Many people want to practice their English on you. Plus, it's usually not hard to pick up a few phases.

BTW You'd be fine in Italy, the Spanish and Italian share many similarities.